On Thursday 01 January 2009 15:28:51 Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Andrew Chernow wrote:
> > > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > Greg Stark wrote:
> > > > >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Andrew Chernow wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every source
file? ISTM that if it were one work there would only have to be one notice.
Because people often take source files and copy them for use in other
projects.
As
Andrew Chernow wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
One work, I assume.
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every
source file? ISTM that if it wer
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Andrew Chernow wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Greg Stark wrote:
> > > >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
> > > >> whole source tree considiered one work?
> > > >
> >
Greg Stark writes:
> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
> whole source tree considiered one work?
[ shrug... ] We've always done it this way.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To mak
On Thu, 2009-01-01 at 14:47 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andrew Chernow wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Greg Stark wrote:
> > >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
> > >> whole source tree considiered one work?
> > >
> > > One work, I assume.
> > >
> >
>
Andrew Chernow wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Greg Stark wrote:
> >> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
> >> whole source tree considiered one work?
> >
> > One work, I assume.
> >
>
> I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every sou
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Greg Stark wrote:
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
One work, I assume.
I am not a lawyer, but if its one work, why is there a notice in every source
file? ISTM that if it were one work there wo
Greg Stark wrote:
> Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
> whole source tree considiered one work?
One work, I assume.
--
Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard driv
Is that actually legal if we haven't modified the files? Or is the
whole source tree considiered one work?
--
Greg
On 1 Jan 2009, at 13:25, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have updated all the source files for a 2009 copyright; seems the
commit message was suppressed due to its size. Tom found a
I have updated all the source files for a 2009 copyright; seems the
commit message was suppressed due to its size. Tom found a few more and
I have adjusted for those as well.
--
Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If
At 2004-12-31 23:49:35 -0500, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us wrote:
>
> With 8.0 coming out in 2005, I think I should update the copyrights on
> the files.
I don't think it actually makes any difference.
-- ams
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/re
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> With 8.0 coming out in 2005, I think I should update the copyrights on
> the files.
I see Marc has already done the update. I am checking with the
src/tools/copyright to make sure he got them all. He updated legal.sgml
so I bet he got them all.
--
Bruce Momjian
With 8.0 coming out in 2005, I think I should update the copyrights on
the files.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup.
14 matches
Mail list logo
